Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
contrary , generally , this provision in the regulations provides parties an opportunity to have untimely submissions considered when they would otherwise be rejected . Thus , this affords parties a chance to demonstrate that the reason for the untimely submission was not reasonably avoidable and should be accepted . In this case , the fact that Commerce determined that Antique Group ’ s explanations do not meet the extraordinary circumstances criteria does not mean that it was denied an opportunity to remedy its deficiencies ; instead , it means that Antique Group forfeited its opportunity to submit corrections within the window provided by Commerce and failed to demonstrate that the reasons were outside of its control .
In addition to stating that a calendaring error was committed , parties also argue that , as Antique Group explained following the late submission , it faced a last-minute challenge of mobilizing staff when a member of the team preparing the questionnaire responses fell ill with COVID-19 . 90 They contend that this meets the standard for extraordinary circumstances because it could not have been prevented . While Commerce appreciates the challenges that companies face with COVID-19 , Antique Group acknowledged that this situation arose approximately a week before the deadline but provides no explanation how this prevented it from correctly understanding the deadline that was established or for requesting an extension of additional time , had COVID-19 placed additional burdens on the preparation of the requested information . 91 In fact , Antique Group indicated that it still expected to meet the deadline that it believed was 5:00 p . m . ET , in spite of the COVID-19 challenges . 92 Therefore , while parties contend that the COVID-19 issues created extraordinary circumstances , we disagree . Antique Group should have had in place reasonable measures to be aware of the deadline and , to the extent COVID-19 affected the respondent ’ s ability to submit information on time , the company had sufficient notice of the COVID-19 challenges to submit an extension request to Commerce ahead of the deadline .
While commenting parties argue that Commerce has , in the past , accepted untimely submissions where a respondent has demonstrated that it had put into place remedies to avoid such issues in the future , Commerce notes that it evaluates each individual situation when making a determination of whether accepting a late submission is warranted , basing this decision on the specific facts of each proceeding . Additionally , various parties point to Artisan and other similar court rulings to argue that Commerce should have accepted the untimely submission in the interest of fairness and accuracy and , accepting it would not have resulted in any prejudice to the proceeding . However , as the courts have acknowledged , Commerce has broad discretion to set and manage its deadlines . 93 Commerce sets the deadlines based on the situation when the deadline is determined and , when determining whether to extend a deadline , Commerce considers the justifications provided by the requesting party , as well as the statutory and regulatory deadlines and Commerce ’ s need for the requested information . That said , strict enforcement of time limits and other requirements is neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion . 94
90
See Antique Group ’ s Letter , “ Request for Acceptance of 2 nd Supplemental Questionnaire Response ( Sec-ACD ) Post Deadline ,” dated May 24 , 2022 .
91
Id .
92
Id .
93
See , e . g ., Yantai Timken , 521 F . Supp . 2d at 1372 .
94
See Maverick Tube Corp . v . United States , 107 F . Supp . 3d 1318 , 1331 ( CIT 2015 ).
19 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved